SkinWalker said:
We don't know if a lot of things exist... but we know that the probability of aliens visiting our solar system is very, very remote. Enough that even the most improbable geologic processes are far more probable.
That's not true. Have you ever heard of The Drake equation? Furthermore, it's you're opinion that the probability of aliens visiting our solar system is very, very remote. If so, then what are the probabilities?
I only meant to imply that these were geologic processes unknown to you, it's quite likely that there are geologists and the like that are quite comfortable with what they've seen and non-concerned. There is simply far too much data of actual importance to keep them busy than to question improbable possibilities as "alien structures." This would be akin to hypothesizing that the Moon had pockets of cheese and announcing this possibility to the media.
Okay, but that's my point. I've not found one mention of the very odd shapped rocks. Even if they are "easily explainable" to a geologist, they are never mentioned. Don't you find a that a little odd considering their size, and shape? Really, I think you do find it odd. However, being in you're fanatical debunkery mindset you won't let yourself admit that.
Again, I only meant to imply that you were ignorant about the geologic processes involved, not that others were. In fact, I can think of several right off the top of my head that would give some of the same effects you seem to think exist. Many of your "structures" are also simply tricks of shadow and light, which you seem to not care about.
You are funny. Any sort of natural feature you say created the structure would be considered a higher probability than an alien structure. So you can say whatever you want with the rules you've set up.
I've seen debunker's do this a lot.
Not at all. I readily concede that there is a possibility that you may be right. I simply don't think that the probability of it warrants the attention you give.
That's my point, we all make our own idea's up as to what's probable. That's why I don't rule it out like you do. You use interesting logic. I can see how you must not find anything in space interesting, because, we havent proven it to exist yet. However, we can't prove that it excists, untill we prove it exists.
I disagree. I think you've come to some very obvious conclusions regarding alien structures and ETI-UFOs as evidenced in your a priori assumptions about aliens and ufos in general.
Yes, I now believe there are some (perhaps) ruined or ancient alien structures on the Moon, and the Asteroid Eros. Maybe even Mars, though I've not yet really studied those images. This is based on a lot of different UFO stories, pictures, claims, events, coverups I've studied over the years. However, I am not saying every image I find interesting is "alien". Merely, that they could be, and in some cases I believe ARE. Just depends on which image. The large, dish like feature below is one of the most amazing ones yet:
Two fallacies there. One, people have seen and photographed faces and objects in clouds and other things I mentioned that are infinitely more obvious as to the object they are supposed to resemble than your rocks. Two, you are still operating on the assumptiont that the geologists and other scientists noticed something worthy of discussion.
I have not pointed out one "face". You debunker's really only mention that as a cheap debunkery attempt, to deflect from the image itself and create doubt. These are structural objects, which you claim it's more likely to be natural. On some of these images, I disagree with you.
Not at all. It is a very reasoned argument to debunk crackpot speculations. In fact, this very argument is used by Dr. Carl Sagan in A Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, though worded somewhat differently. A geologist, archaeologist, or any scientist uses traps and caveats just like this as ways of avoiding assumptions about what they find.
Well, using it in a comparable situation is fine. What you're doing is comparing apples to oranges to deflect from the image itself and create doubt about it without actually DOING ANYTHING to alter the substance the images contain. Of course, we disagree on what these images contain so oh well.
Then don't bore us with your speculations if you aren't going to properly source them. I'm certainly likely to fall back on, "there's no provenience or context, so the photo doesn't matter" if you aren't willing to offer more information. But your obstinence lends credibility to what I said earlier: you don't want anyone to have enough information to effectively offer a more prosaic explanation.
Oh please, you must think I'm stupid. Even if I properly sourced them, you would makeup some sort of plausible explanation, that you yourself did not believe, just so you could say it's "more plausible" than anything artificial. Nice try though.
That's because there is nothing to indicate any reason to believe otherwise. Everything you've show so far has all the characteristics of geology. Some of it interesting geology, but most of it just plain geology.
You seem to be saying you need more information to know what it is, yet YOU KNOW IT'S NATURAL GEOLOGY.
it's okay, I know what you're trying to say. You want to say it's natural, without really doing any work so as to make sure nobody start's to think I am on to something. "Got to end this pseudoscience juke at all costs".
Your regolith hypothesis would be incorrect. When you see a shadow like this, you want to start thinking, "what else could cause a shadow like this?" The most likely cause is a rock (most likely ejecta from a crater impact) that is at the tip of the shadow, creating a dead zone of light that extends to the shadow of the crater's rim. This wouldn't need to be a tall object if the sun were low enough on the horizon. Think "out of the box," man.
I would have to look at the sun angle on this one, but both of those explanations are fine. But just to bug you even more, I still think there's a chance it's an alien artificially built structure.